WASHINGTON—After months of deliberation, the U.S. Supreme Court opted today to leave the ultimate decision on whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry in the more than capable hands of states such as Texas, Alabama, and Georgia. “As to the issue of gay marriage itself, we will not interfere with the individual commonwealth’s authority to fairly and competently dictate its own laws in these matters, seeing as states such as, for instance, Georgia have time and again proven themselves eminently adept at making the fairest and most reasoned of decisions,” said Chief Justice John Roberts of the state where sodomy laws were fiercely enforced until federally overturned in 2003. “Though the court’s ruling will delay the recognition of gay marriage on a state-by-state basis, the nation’s homosexuals should rest easy knowing that their freedoms and right to the pursuit of happiness lie within the famously rational and egalitarian legislatures of states such as Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Florida, Montana, Utah, and West Virginia.” Roberts added that “who better” to have final authority on signing equal rights legislation into law than the likes of Jan Brewer, Rick Perry, and Scott Walker.

When I saw yesterday's headline - I thought about many of the posters here at Interference, those on both sides of the gay marriage issue. While my own conscience does not accept the concept of gay marriage, as I believe it is ultimately a Sacrament and not a mere legal expression - I do feel this will help homosexuals being treated equally before the law as individuals, and that is a good thing.

Wow, great to see some old friends back in FYM. I hope God has smiled on you these past few years.

Re: DOMA.

Some of us long ago realized that government benefits accorded couples had to be given to all couples which is why we recognized the need for civil unions. So I have no problem with that portion of the ruling. But government benefits and the definition of marriage are two separate issues. There is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage as the Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage so equal protection does not apply to how the states or citizens wish to democratically construct their marriage laws (which the court kinda affirmed except when that princible stood in the way of their desired outcome). Also, the federal government is well within its rights to define marriage as it feels necessary for the purpose of federal law. There is nothing unconstitutional about a federal definition restricting marriage to one man and one woman. There is, however, something unconstitutional about benefits, or penalties, administered in an unequal way.

Even as some states legalized SSM the federal government was under no obligation to change its definition although at some point it might become prudent. For example, if California and Vermont adopt a law that allows dogs and cats to be accepted as dependents for state income tax purposes is the federal government obligated to accept dogs and cats as dependents on a federal 1040? Er, no. As of Wed the federal government now recognizes a form of marriage that 30+ states do not. How is that any less unfair to those states than states with SSM thought the law was until 2 days ago?

What should have happened is the people seek redress from their elected officials to CHANGE the law. This is how a Constitutional Republic works. The courts should be the last option and their intervention only sought when enumerated constitutional rights are being violated.
So I’m actually happy that gay couples will receive equal protection under the law. But I’m disgusted that, once again, a court has overstepped its constitutional role of interpreting law (like the 14th Amendment, the Separation of Powers is in the Constitution) to legislating law and in addition, now even the Supreme Court feels the need to impugn the motives and moral character of any American citizen seeking only to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.

Justice Antonin Scalia got it right.

Quote:

“To be sure (as the majority points out), the legislation is called the Defense of Marriage Act. But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions … In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “disparage,” ”injure,” “degrade,” ”demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence—indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history.

“It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.”

So five judges redefine marriage for the country... just as drawn up at the Constitutional Convention I'm sure. Could be worse, in California just one clown in a robe had the honors.

Some of us long ago realized that government benefits accorded couples had to be given to all couples which is why we recognized the need for civil unions. So I have no problem with that portion of the ruling. But government benefits and the definition of marriage are two separate issues. There is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage as the Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage

definitions. definitions. definitions.

Do you work for Merriam Webster? Is it the cost of printing new dictionaries that bothers you so much?

Who gets to define it anyway? Are you Christians claiming ownership over marriage as you do morals?

Either way, it doesn't even matter anymore. You lost. Maybe go micro for a while. Be sure to post pictures of the rivers of blood running through your streets whenever that happens